Public Bill Committee

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Clause 16

Conditional leave to enter or remain

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 128, in clause 16, page 9, line 15, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘where it appears that there is evidence that establishes that he is likely to abscond and that such a condition is justified as being necessary in the interests of public order, public safety, national security or for the prevention of crime; and
(v) a condition requiring him to reside at a specified address where it appears that there is evidence that establishes that he is likely to abscond and that such a condition is justified as being necessary in the interests of public order, public safety, national security or for the prevention of crime, provided that such conditions are consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights and the obligations of the United Kingdom under the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:No. 25, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end add—
‘(2) For the purposes of section 3(1)(c)(v) of the 1971 Act any condition imposed upon residence must be reasonable in all circumstances.’.
No. 85, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end add—
‘(2) A condition about residence shall not apply if—
(a) the residence is more than 25 miles from the nearest reporting centre; or
(b) for employment purposes, a different location is more suitable.’.
No. 86, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament, not more than 12 months after the commencement of the provisions under this section, a report on the operation of these conditions.’.
No. 129, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end add—
‘(2) After section 3(1)(c) of that Act insert—
“(d) A condition about reporting or residence under paragraph (c) above shall not apply if the person is under the age of 18.”’.

Joan Ryan: Welcome to our proceedings, Mr. Amess. It is my pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I was concluding the first part of my remarks on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and the hon. Member for Rochdale was seeking to intervene. Does he still wish to avail himself of that opportunity?

Paul Rowen: I am glad that you have joined us for our deliberations, Mr. Amess. Does the Minister not accept that far better arrangements could be made than using immigration and nationality directorate officers? She talked about the current consultation. If there is a requirement to deal with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, would it not be better to deal with them through social services or local authorities, which have expertise in dealing with young people?

Joan Ryan: It is important to bear in mind that we are not talking simply about children or children in care. We are talking about children with limited leave, who therefore have a relationship with the immigration service and the IND. I have made the point that immigration officers and IND officials who deal with such children are specially trained. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. It is important that the IND is involved in such situations for the reasons that I have given, but it is equally important that the officers are specially trained.
Current reporting arrangements for asylum seekers do not generally expect individuals to travel further than 25 miles to report. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford dealt with that distance. If there is no reporting centre within 25 miles, we will find alternative arrangements—we could, for example, require the person to report to a local police station or other identified location. We anticipate that similar policy currently applying to asylum seekers would apply to those with limited leave who are required to report.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for her clarification of what she expects to happen to those who live far from a reporting centre. Can she give us a rough idea of how many people would be affected by such a policy? How many people does she expect will find themselves reporting regularly?

Joan Ryan: That point came up in the evidence sessions. I said that we expect the numbers for foreign national prisoners to be small—possibly tens rather than hundreds. I cannot give an exact figure for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, because we are not suggesting that every unaccompanied asylum-seeking child will be subject to the conditions, but around 1,960 grants of discretionary leave at initial decision were made for that category in 2005, so the number would be somewhat less than that. I hope that that acts as a guide to the hon. Gentleman.
In terms of reporting residency, it is clearly not in our interests to force individuals to live in an area where they could not report to the IND or where it would be impossible for them to find work. If an individual wanted to find work in another location, the residency condition would ensure that they kept us informed of where they were moving and, in some cases, our approval of the new address would be required. Once they had moved, reporting conditions would be modified accordingly, so that they could report to a reporting centre nearer to their new home.
As to the terms of residency—I am dealing with amendment No. 129 now—we will grant leave with residency conditions only where that is justified by a need for close monitoring of an individual. We have no intention of applying residency conditions to refugees, students or work permit holders, as some non-governmental organisations have alleged. We have already discussed that in relation to students. In the first instance we may apply the residency conditions, as I said, to certain asylum-seeking children, with a view to improving child protection, as well as facilitating their removal at the age of 18.
There is evidence that children go missing from care, and we want not to take on but to complement the valuable work done by social services. Granting leave with reporting and, where needed, residency conditions, should mean that a child’s absence is noted at an early stage. I think that what I have said covers some points that the hon. Member for Hertsmere made about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We should be able to notice an absence early, and establish the reason for it, in which case all reasonable steps to locate the child could be taken.

Paul Rowen: The hon. Member for Ashford has mentioned the distance of 25 miles, but I want to suggest the practical example of an unaccompanied child asylum seeker in Rochdale being required to travel to Salford, where the centre is. I should feel much happier about the amount of disruption to the child’s routine if the immigration officer would come to a centre in Rochdale, rather than have the child travel across the conurbation, with disruption to their education, among other things. Would the Minister consider something like that as an acceptable reporting arrangement?

Joan Ryan: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a yes or no answer for every possible circumstance, but I can, I think, give an assurance that we intend to be, as the law indeed requires, reasonable. We intend to be flexible and we do not intend to create huge disruption and difficulty in the life of a child in the circumstances in question. We would seek to work closely with a social worker and with social services and the local authority, to ensure that we could achieve as smoothly as possible, with the minimum possible disruption and maximum possible protection for the child, our aims of protecting the child and subsequently preparing them for removal, on their becoming an adult. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. As to the notion of 25 miles, although I understand that the amendment is probably a probing one, we would never put something so precise in the Bill, as I am sure hon. Members realise.
We believe that it is right to maintain closer contact with older children whose leave is about to expire. That will allow us to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for their removal from the UK, or for further applications for leave. We make no apology for seeking to return young people who no longer qualify for leave when they reach the age of 18. Sending children without genuine asylum claims to the United Kingdom in the hope that they will establish a footing for the rest of the family in this country is an abuse of the asylum system, and is exploitative of the child. Returning those who have been sent in that way, when they reach adulthood, will discourage that unacceptable practice.
We also intend to apply the new powers to foreign criminals, of whom we have said less in debating this clause. They are an important category. I think that monitoring foreign criminals who cannot be removed at present because of legal barriers, with a view to their eventual removal, is clearly in the national interest.

Crispin Blunt: Presumably those people will be of some interest to the police, having been recently released from prison. The Government already have powers to require them to report to the police. Would it not be more appropriate for them to do that, and for the police then to inform the immigration and nationality directorate of their whereabouts, so that the police would know where those convicted criminals were?

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we would indeed always encourage our agencies to work together in co-operation for the best outcomes. It is important that we apply the measures to the group in question sothat we can effect removal as soon as possible. That condition is also important because this period should not count towards settlement—a point that has been little discussed but which is important to the clause and those categories.

James Clappison: I am with the hon. Lady on that latter point. They should not count towards settlement for the purpose of staying four or five years in this country. With reference to the case just mentioned by the Minister, of foreign criminals and the desirability of having a condition of residence for them, would she tell us what the sanction is for breach of that condition?

Joan Ryan: If my memory serves me correctly, the sanctions are a fine of up to £5,000 and a prison sentence. They will operate as an effective deterrent to anyone who seeks to avoid meeting the conditions on their leave.
 I know that Liberty has said that residency conditions could breach article 8, “Right to respect for private and family life”, and article 11, “Freedom of assembly and association”, of the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Ashford was seeking reassurance on those concerns. I can assure him that that is not the case. Some interference with articles 8 and 11 is permitted when it is in accordance with the law in the interests of the permissible aim of the state and when it is proportionate to that aim. Case law has established that the maintenance of effective immigration control and public safety are permissible aims and that decisions taken pursuant to those aims should be proportionate in all but a minority of exceptional cases.
In response to amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, and the question of reporting to Parliament on the operation of clause 16, I have some sympathy with what he said about the need to report to Parliament on these matters. We intend to be open about the operation of this clause and about the work of the new border and immigration agency as a whole. In this instance, I do not think that effective post-legislative scrutiny would be best achieved by the requirement of an individual report, which, from the wording of amendment No. 86, would be a one-off.
I understand that these amendments were probably written before our new clauses on the independent inspectorate were tabled. The introduction of that inspectorate will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise the work of the new agency. The remit of the independent inspectorate will include a number of key themes relevant to the operation of the border and immigration agency, including practice and procedure in making decisions, consistency of approach, the information it provides and the treatment of those that use its services. The inspectorate will report annually to the Secretary of State, who will have to lay that report before Parliament. Therefore the terms of the independent inspectorate’s remit meet the objectives of the amendment and I hope that, following that reassurance, it will be withdrawn.

David Amess: Before I call the hon. Member for Rochdale, I advise the Committee that I am not minded to have a clause stand part debate. I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind when dealing with the conclusion of this particular debate and the next one.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on some of the amendments that we have tabled today. However, it is a pity that the consultation is, as she said, still ongoing yet here we are dealing with the Bill. It would have helped our deliberations on child asylum seekers if the consultation had been concluded before we considered the provisions.

Damian Green: If we are not to have a clause stand part debate, I wish to respond to the Minister’s remarks about my amendments. In a sense, there is a reflection of the problem with our debate on this clause: it is almost happening on twin tracks that do not meet each other. The Minister is dealing with the current Government intention of the clause, which is to deal with foreign prisoners or former prisoners and unaccompanied children, but that is not what the Bill says; as the Minister has honestly admitted, the Bill could be used for different and much wider groups of people—indeed, it could be used for any group of people.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale and I sought in part to pin down this or future Governments on what this clause could achieve. It is worth pausing to think about that, because the Minister has acknowledged that the provision could be applied to anyone. It has already been stretched; in the original regulatory impact assessment it was supposed to apply only to foreign prisoners, but Ministers then briefed the various interested bodies that it would also apply to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. So, even before the Bill was discussed the purpose of the clause was being expanded. Who can tell how it will be expanded in the future?
The breadth of the clause means that the use of the powers could not simply be confined to the two particular groups that I mentioned. In their present form, the provisions could be used to impose a curfew requirement on anyone, including someone who is here as a refugee and who has been a model citizen.

Joan Ryan: In fact, it is not possible to impose a curfew or, as has been suggested in other places, electronic tagging, because those measures can apply only where we have the right to detain. We do not have the right to detain those granted limited leave. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Damian Green: I am grateful for that response. I am not sure that “a condition about residence”, which is what paragraph (v) provides for, cannot be interpreted as, “To be at that place of residence at a particular time of day, every day”. I accept the Minister’s assurance, but the Bill does not make that point obvious.
I also wish to consider the practicalities. I do not agree with all the arguments about the clause that the Refugee Council has advanced, but some are powerful, specifically those relating to unaccompanied minors. It makes the valid point that there is no evidence to suggest that minors are more likely to abscond than any other category of non-nationals; on the contrary, it is in their interests not to abscond, as they are overwhelmingly likely to be dependent on support from social services for their daily bread.
Secondly, if, as a result of the review process, a negative decision is made, it would clearly be in the individual’s interests not to abscond in order for them to pursue their appeal. It is difficult to see what additional benefit is gained by the measure we are discussing or how it would significantly expedite removal when the unaccompanied minor turns 18. At best, it may well have no impact on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and at worst it will harm them.
The Minister will be aware that the Refugee Council argues that if any extension of such powers is necessary, they should accurately reflect their intended targets and the international human rights standards by which the UK is bound. She has assured us that certain articles of the various human rights conventions are not breached by the clause, but she will also be aware that that is a controversial view. It is a general principle of human rights law that where individuals are lawfully within a state, they should enjoy freedom of movement and residence in that state. That principle is contained in article 2 of the fourth protocol of the European convention on human rights and in article 12 of the international covenant on civil and political rights of 1966, which the UK signed and ratified. It is arguable that parts of the clause could stretch those particular protocols if not breach them altogether. The Minister spoke about article 8 of the ECHR, which relates to the right to respect for private family life and home. She has clearly had advice that the provisions do not breach it; I hope that she is right about that, not least for the taxpayer’s sake if we have to fight cases on it.
Finally, I return to the practical point. As long as the intended targets of the measures are not reflected in the clause, we are in danger of allowing through legislation that is wide open to function creep, that unpleasant phenomenon that we have mentioned in several debates. We have seen it happen: section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was infamously used against Mr. Wolfgang, the 82-year-old heckler at a Labour party conference. I am sure that when Ministers passed that legislation, they did not intend to use it against hecklers at Labour party conference or people who shout, “Nonsense!” at Ministers.

Crispin Blunt: That is very generous.

Damian Green: I am feeling particularly generous this afternoon. I suspect that if they had wanted to, they would have found other means of imposing their will on such people. Indeed, with the vote coming up tomorrow, I suspect that they would end up using those means against their own colleagues.
There is a serious point here. We have seen a notorious example in recent times of function creep in some serious legislation. It is worth the Committee pausing to consider whether we are giving too much power to Governments and laying ourselves wide open to the possibility of the legislation being used against people in ways that Ministers explicitly tell us that they do not intend now. We can see that happening and we should not allow it to happen. We should pass properly defined legislation that aims at specific targets, does what it is intended to do and does not allow these Ministers or any future group of Ministers to do things that the Committee cannot possibly anticipate. On those grounds, I regret that the Minister has found herself unable to accept any of this group of amendments. I know that you feel that we have discussed the issues sufficiently fully not to have a debate on clause stand part, Mr. Amess, but I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the clause.

Paul Rowen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end add—
‘(2) Any person granted limited leave to remain shall be allowed to seek employment from two months after an appeal has been lodged.
(3) Any benefits received by a person granted limited leave to remain shall take account of earned income.’.
So far we have been talking about increasing the restrictions that are placed on people who are granted limited leave to remain. The amendment seeks to improve the situation of asylum seekers who have limited leave to remain. At the moment, an asylum seeker who is granted leave to remain while their appeal is considered is prevented from seeking employment and must rely totally on benefits. It is an important principle that people should have the dignity of being able to support themselves. Engaging them in gainful employment would also offset some of the cost of keeping them.
The amendment would have a number of benefits. We discussed underground employment and people being exploited by unscrupulous employers. That would not happen were asylum seekers able to work legally. Furthermore, it will be much easier to keep tabs on such people if they were in employment—their biometric visas would ensure that details of that employment and other information was recorded properly on the system. That would be far better than having them work unofficially for unscrupulous employers and subject to no control, or not working at all and burdening the state.
We are seeking to ensure that a person could seek employment within two months of their asylum appeal being lodged. That would be welcomed by taxpayers who support them at the moment and by asylum seekers themselves.

James Clappison: The amendment uses the words,
“two months after an appeal has been lodged.”
Does the word “appeal” mean the initial application for asylum or an appeal against a refusal of an initial asylum application?

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I was referring to the initial application for asylum. Within two months of the date on which the process is started—when the asylum application has been made and the case is being heard—they could seek employment. Those employment rights would continue until the person was removed.

Joan Ryan: I accept that the hon. Member for Rochdale is of the view, policy-wise, that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. However, his amendment refers to persons granted limited leave and so would not apply to asylum seekers. I understand what he is getting at, but this would be the wrong place to make such provision.

Crispin Blunt: It would help the Committee if the Minister explained such granting of limited leave to remain. Clause 16 is aimed at people to whom the Government would not want to grant leave to remain, and whom they are in fact attempting to remove—foreign prisoners whom the Government are attempting to deport. Where does their formal leave to remain in the United Kingdom come from and who grants it? Will the Minister explain the legal position so that we can form a view of the merits of allowing such people to work?

Joan Ryan: I am happy to provide that clarification, although we have been discussing the matter for a considerable time so I am slightly concerned that Members still are not clear. As we said, one group to whom the limited leave applies consists of foreign national prisoners whom we want to remove—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—but cannot, owing to legal barriers, usually in relation to the situation in their country of origin. As he said, another group consists of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who, for the most part, we cannot return to their country of origin because we cannot establish good reception arrangements. We must put their care and safety first.
Students and a number of other groups also have leave, but not asylum seekers—because they are asylum seekers! Those granted limited leave might well have gone through the asylum process and been rejected or found not to have a founded application. However, for whatever reason, we might not be able to remove them, but must grant them limited leave according to their human rights, and under the convention and other such legislation. However, we want to place restrictions on that leave; and we want to ensure that that limited leave does not count towards settlement. For instance, national prisoners will get six months limited leave if they make a claim under the European convention on human rights. On that basis, they would achieve limited leave, although others would need to satisfy or challenge a number of other legal conditions in order to achieve it.
When moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Rochdale referred only to asylum seekers. As a matter of policy, the Government do not consider that asylum seekers should normally have a right to work. We believe that it is important to maintain a distinction between legal migration for employment, and asylum—the latter being for people who seek protection.
I have already said how the amendment would apply if we were to allow people granted limited leave to remain to seek employment after two months. First, two months seems a rather arbitrary time. I am not sure why it was selected. However, it would undermine immigration control by narrowing the circumstances in which limited leave to remain could be granted, subject to employment conditions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned benefit entitlement. Suffice it to say that that, too, is not really a matter for us but for the Department for Work and Pensions.

James Clappison: I have some sympathy with the amendment, because some asylum seekers have talents that could be used to the advantage of the country. However, as we were warned this morning by Migrationwatch UK, we need to keep in mind the firm distinction between economic migration and claims for asylum. Is not the real solution to speed up the asylum process as much as possible and then to use the talents of those who have been recognised as having a genuine asylum claim? Is it not regrettable that, for many years now, the process has been so very slow?

Joan Ryan: Indeed; and speeding up the asylum system is the key to our approach. In fact, we are having some success. The hon. Gentleman will know that, with the national asylum model, the end-to-end process is much more effective than previously. It has made a substantial difference in the time that it takes for cases to go from initial claim to completion.
May I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale that clause 16 does not introduce any new restrictions on the employment of persons granted limited leave to remain? As I said, the amendment would narrow the circumstances in which leave could be granted, subject to employment restrictions. It could achieve the opposite of what he seeks, although I understand the point that he is making.

Paul Rowen: I should like to put a couple of scenarios to the Minister to explain when the amendment might apply. At the moment, we have a number of people from Zimbabwe and Iran who, for various reasons, are not able to go back to their own country, but they have not been granted asylum; in the case of Zimbabwe, the process has been frozen. If a nurse or a doctor from Zimbabwe who was perfectly well qualified was in that situation, would it not make sense for them to be able to work and thus be of benefit to this country?

Joan Ryan: We do return people to Zimbabwe, and voluntary return is entirely available. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that some key decisions by the courts have been in favour of the Government returning people to Zimbabwe; and we await the outcome of the latest hearing.

Kerry McCarthy: On a similar point, there are a large number of people from Somalia in my constituency. We have a situation in which many of those people are failed asylum seekers, but there are few forced deportations to Somalia—about half a dozen over the past few years. The political situation in Somalia gives cause for optimism for a few weeks and then suddenly everything goes drastically wrong again. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, people who are highly skilled and can make a real contribution are, at the moment, making no contribution at all and are in limbo. In some cases, they have been in limbo for many years. Will the Minister explain what we should do with people in that situation?

Joan Ryan: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, but those with limited leave may or may not be subjected to employment restrictions. As I said, the clause will not in any way introduce new restrictions. There are people who have limited leave who do have the ability to work.
I believe that the amendment would potentially undermine the effective operation of immigration control. Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale that I cannot accept it.

Stewart Jackson: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister because she always gets what could be called the hospital passes in the Home Office and the most difficult briefs. I would like to think that she is among friends this afternoon, although not necessarily in the Chamber—as they say, “kind words butter no parsnips”. Obviously, she has comprehensively answered the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale and has made the point about asylum seekers and unaccompanied children. I would like to press her on the issue of foreign national prisoners with limited leave to remain. What is her understanding of the ability of that group of people to access benefits? I am not clear about what their situation is in terms of benefits.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I see that the hon. Members for Reigate and for Ashford are smiling. There is a possibility that those with limited leave can access benefits, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Rochdale, that is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and has no proper place in the Bill. I hope that I have adequately explained my reasons for not accepting the amendment and that he will withdraw it.

John Hemming: Unsurprisingly, I suppose, I rise to support the amendment. A difficulty raised by the Transport and General Workers Union and the trade unions in the evidence sessions is that employers who are in the twilight zone like to stay there. They like to employ undocumented workers who have no right to work because they have no rights and therefore cannot enforce any employment rights. An issue that has been raised and needs to be addressed is the complex situation that exists in terms of immigration and employment law and the lack of a one-to-one relationship between the two. If we are aiming to introduce legislation on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion, there is a merit in considering that issue in relation to the people who have a right to be here and work. It is clear that some people have a right to be here to study. Then there are the people about whom we are not quite sure; and then there are the people who should not be here, and obviously if they should not be here, they should not have a right to work. We need to consider this evidence-based question: is it really helpful to tell people, when we do not know whether they have a right to be here or not, that they cannot work? Would it be better to say, “No, let’s not have those people as a burden on the state. Let’s not have the taxpayer look after them. Let’s say, if they can look after—”

Damian Green: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the apparently exhaustive list of those who are here, he missed out one group, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, East: people who have no right to be here, but whom the Government cannot remove from this country. They may well not be entitled to benefits and cannot work and are therefore left to destitution or criminality. I am reinforcing the point being made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley: the situation is even more difficult than he is making out.

John Hemming: I accept that point. If the Government are going to argue the thesis that people whom we know we cannot remove but whose status is uncertain must depend on the state or be destitute, what evidence do the Government have that the proposal would undermine immigration law?

Paul Rowen: I have listened carefully to the Minister and I understand her point about the drafting of the amendment. However, I believe that important issues are at stake, although perhaps my amendment does not address them properly. The situation of people who perhaps have no permanent right to be here but who cannot be removed is intolerable. I would like us to be able to grant them employment rights, for the very good reason that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, they would then be in the open and not in the twilight zone, where they can be exploited.
We have only to consider the case of the cockle pickers up in Morecambe to see what happens when people whose status is not adequately known are used by shadowy employers. There are no proper controls and they end up losing their lives as a result. I want us to have a system that is regulated.
I accept the Minister’s point about the drafting of my amendment and I will seek leave to withdraw it, although I give her notice that when we return to the Bill at a later stage, I would like to have an amendment that addresses those points, because I believe that there is support for such an amendment. I was a little disappointed that the Minister did not make an offer to the effect that the Government would examine that. I give her notice that we want to return to the issue, because we think, certainly given what the TGWU said to us in the evidence session, that the issue is important and needs to be satisfactorily resolved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman ,  being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Support for failed asylum-seekers

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in clause 17, page 9,line 27, leave out ‘can bring’ and insert ‘has brought’.—[Mr. Blunt.]

David Amess: With this we may discuss amendment No. 87, in clause 17, page 9, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).

Damian Green: We have no objection to the clause in principle. The aim is to clear up the problem of failed asylum seekers becoming destitute while awaiting their appeal hearings, which is clearly a sensible course of action. My amendment would allow those who have been given permission to appeal out of time to be treated as an asylum seeker, by leaving out paragraph (b). It seeks to add fairness and some degree of justice to the system, because the clause seeks to exclude from the definition of asylum seekers, and therefore from support, those who have permission to appeal out of time.
I am sure that the Minister will treat the amendment as a probing amendment, because I am puzzled as to how it can be the case that the Government can give someone permission to appeal out of time and yet say that, while they are appealing, they are not seeking asylum. On the surface, that seems contradictory; if there is some legal point that lies underneath the surface, I would welcome clarification from the Minister. However, as it stands the clause appears to be slightly contradictory. The state has recognised that the process on the particular individual’s decision is not completely over, although they are clearly, at this stage, on the last knockings of the appeal process. However, as long as they are recognised as being in the appeal process, it seems, on the surface, to be straightforwardly unfair that they should not be recognised as an asylum seeker. As I say, I wait with bated breath for clarification from the Minister as to why that should be, but as it stands the clause seems to be straightforwardly self-contradictory and unfair.

Joan Ryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his probing amendment. It would perhaps be useful if I were to explain the situation to the Committee for the purposes of clarity and scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the clause seeks to maintain the status quo, whereby we can make available asylum support for those individuals who have had an initial decision refused and are awaiting their appeal. Previously, that was always the case, but it has been called into question in the courts and it is currently stayed in the House of Lords while we are seeking to legislate in order to clarify the position.
If we cannot continue to pay asylum support during that period, we would have to consider making available support under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is accommodation and a voucher method of payment. It has never been our intention that we should move towards that situation while someone is still in the process of an asylum application. That support is aimed at those who have exhausted all means of appeal in the asylum process, but are not able to be removed at that point in time. Clearly, we would not wish for those individuals to be destitute and therefore there is the provision of support under section 4 of the 1999 Act. That support should not apply to people who are between the point of initial application and appeal.
The reason that the amendment is worded as it is, and also with reference to Government amendment No. 109—a technical amendment—is related to the fact that we do not only provide support under section 95 of the 1999 Act. It is also in relation to those who would be covered by schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which does not only cover asylum applicants.
Our problem, and the reason for the wording, is that those who are refused at the initial decision have a grace period within which to apply for appeal. That grace period is 10 working days, and if they put their appeal in within that period there is not an issue. We wish to ensure that that applies also to those covered by schedule 3. If it does not, there will be a gap in the system for some who do not put in their appeal. Even if they make an appeal immediately it will take some days to process, so there will still be a gap during which they have no means of support. One can imagine the cost to the system of people having to go through a process of applying for section 4 support for a week before going back on section 95 support. It would be expensive and chaotic and certainly would not provide people with the support that they need on a timely basis.
We need to ensure not only that people apply within the 10 days and that we apply the same 10-day period to schedule 3, under which there is no grace period, but that those awaiting appeal can still be defined as asylum seekers for the purpose of support and that both those receiving section 95 support and those covered by schedule 3 have the grace period of10 working days within which to make their applications. If we were to extend that to out-of-time applications beyond the 10 working days, there could be an indefinite period in which we would be paying asylum support while somebody considered whether to make an application.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Minister not just for giving way but for her explanation of what is, she will agree, a tortuous process. I am still concerned whether those who receive support under one provision or another, or successively under more than one, might fall down any cracks. They may feel that they are legitimately in the system, even if they are not pushing it as she has just described, but find themselves unable to receive support under any of the relevant provisions. If there are people in that situation, are there likely to be many?

Joan Ryan: Our clear view is that the clause will cover the situation and that we will not have the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In fact, the clause is about ensuring that such cracks do not exist and that people have appropriate and adequate support.
Government amendment No. 109 would mean that at the end of the process, if an appeal is upheld and it is found that a person should be given refugee status, that person will have a 28-day period in which their asylum support will continue to be paid while they move from the National Asylum Support Service to the usual system and seek accommodation and support by other means. Those whose appeals are not granted will have 21 days in which they will still receive asylum support before they either should make arrangements to leave the country voluntarily or, in some cases, qualify for section 4 support. The clause simply maintains the status quo; it does not seek to achieve anything else. It covers exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman made, and ensures that there are no cracks through which people can fall. It covers the situation for asylum seekers across the board between the initial application, appeal and immediately following appeal.

Damian Green: I am happy with the Minister’s explanation, which I think I understand. If it turns out that the clause is defective and there are cracks in the system I will receive letters on the subject, and the Minister will receive even more than I do. We will all know about it quite quickly.

Crispin Blunt: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 109, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
‘(3A) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b), a person’s status as an asylum-seeker by virtue of subsection (2)(b) continues for a prescribed period after the appeal ceases to be pending.
(3B) In subsection (3A) “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations—
(a) may contain incidental or transitional provision,
(b) may make different provision for different classes of case,
(c) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(d) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.—[Joan Ryan.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Asylum seekers—
‘(1) This section applies for the purposes of—
(a) Part VI (and section 4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support and accommodation for asylum-seekers),
(b) Part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (accommodation centres), and
(c) Schedule 3 to that Act (withholding and withdrawal of support).
(2) In section 94(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (Interpretation of Part IV) and paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (Withholding and withdrawal of support), for the definition of “asylum-seeker” substitute—
“asylum-seeker” means a person—
(a) who is at least 18 years old;
(b) who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary of State;
(c) whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of State;
(d) who remains in the United Kingdom following the making of a claim for asylum; and
(e) who is subject to immigration control but does not currently have leave to enter or remain.”.
(3) The following provisions are hereby repealed—
(a) sections 4(2), (3) and (4) and 94(3), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33);
(b) paragraphs 6, 7A and 17(2) and (3) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41); and
(c) section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19).
(4) Omit paragraph 4(1)(e) of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendments) Regulations 2004, No. 614.’.

Paul Rowen: My proposal deals with the issue of failed asylum seekers, which the Minister touched on earlier. It is important to understand that at present when someone has gone through all the stages, section 95 support ceases, the National Asylum Support Service sends them a letter, they are given notice to quit and then they are effectively left destitute.
I would have no problem if the IND were able to cope with the number of asylum seekers and made provision for them to be removed from this country once their claims had been dealt with. However, the written evidence from the Still Human Still Here group shows that there are about 285,000 failed asylum seekers still in this country who do not receive any support from the Government, and if the present rate continues—we remove one asylum seeker every26 minutes—it will take 14 years to remove them.
We all know of people whose asylum claim has failed, and many of them are hugely tragic cases. There are people in my constituency from Somalia, the Congo, Iraq, Iran and Zimbabwe whose asylum claim has not been successful, for various reasons. Support is withdrawn and the Government use destitution to try to deal with them.

Stewart Jackson: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I, too, encounter such cases in my constituency. If I am being cynical, I sometimes think that the decision to remove people goes in political cycles. A year or so ago, a huge number of Iraqi asylum seekers, some of whom had not even exhausted the appeals procedure, were removed to the St. Ives holding centre in Cambridgeshire and invited to choose their in-flight meal for the journey back to Baghdad without recourse to the system. However, some people have exhausted a very comprehensive legal system. Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that if they refuse to leave, having exhausted the system at great cost to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer, they are in fact undermining the validity of the system for more deserving cases?

Paul Rowen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the extent to which people might have been involved in the system but, with respect, that is part of the problem. As such people have been here for so long, rather than ensure a speedy removal, the Government resort to the quite inhuman tactic of trying to get people removed by forcing them into destitution.
If such people were arrested by an immigration officer and steps were taken to remove them speedily, the argument might have some validity. In my surgery, I have told people bluntly that they have exhausted the system and have no right to remain in the country. That might well be upsetting and worrying for those people, but unfortunately I am only one Member of Parliament and cannot change the law for particular cases, so I have told them that they should be removed. That would be fine if they were speedily removed from the system when a decision is taken.
Generally, this country has high international standards in how we treat people, and a reputation for and record of sympathy to asylum seekers. I object because the tactic—it must be nothing other than that—of using destitution as a means to try and force people back—

Chris Mole: I am following with some interest the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but given that a fair and due process has been pursued, does he not accept that there is ultimately an onus on the individuals to remove themselves as much as on the state to discharge the functions that he describes?

Paul Rowen: I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman says, and people in my surgery have actually said that they must do that. Equally, two wrongs do not make a right and the state has certain duties and responsibilities in how we treat people. Resorting to forcing people underground and having them sleep rough on the streets, rely on charities, forage through bins or whatever to survive is not an acceptable way to proceed in this day and age.
There are 283,500 asylum seekers whose cases have all been lost with no right of appeal. Given that fact and the IND’s current rate of removal, we need to be doing something on that issue. I cannot believe that the proposed approach would be possible, but it might be acceptable if the Government were to start sorting those cases out right away. What is not acceptable at the moment is using destitution as a technique. In our fair, just and civilised society we should not be practising it.

Kerry McCarthy: I want to make a few quick points. I accept the argument that if people have exhausted all avenues of appeal, there is perhaps a pull factor if life is made too comfortable for them here. There have to be some measures that encourage them to return voluntarily. The other day, I met the International Organisation for Migration, which seems to be doing some good work in providing people with resettlement packages in their home countries. I return to the point that I made when we debated the previous clause, about people who have exhausted all avenues of appeal but who come from countries such as Somalia, to which it is difficult for them to return at the moment. We are doing neither forced repatriations there nor voluntary ones, which are also difficult.
I am concerned that the Minister has made several references to people in such situations being entitled to section 4 support, but there seems to be a very low take-up of such support. In response to a question I asked recently, I was told, I think, that the figure was 250 people in the entire south-west region; it may have been 270. That includes not only Bristol, but places such as Plymouth, Swindon and Gloucester, so the number must be a tiny percentage of failed asylum seekers not receiving any support. Why does the Minister think that take-up is so low and what does she think is happening to people who are not getting section 4 support? The answer must be that they have either gone underground and are relying on the charity of friends or family, or have resorted to criminal activity because they have no other alternative.
What analysis has the Home Office done of the idea that destitution encourages people to return voluntarily? I have written to the Minister recently about the work of the Hotham Mission in Australia, which has been taking the opposite approach in assigning caseworkers to work with asylum seekers. Its evidence seems to be that following such heavy intervention, more than 85 per cent. of all asylum seekers who have been refused places leave the country voluntarily on the final decision. The Minister and I are in correspondence about this matter at the moment, but the argument of those involved would be that with such intervention—providing some support and working with families—asylum seekers are much more likely to return home than go underground and escape the system altogether.
Finally, where are we with the section 9 pilot schemes that have been running and in providing support to children rather than families as a whole? I understand that the Department is due to report on the outcome of those pilots soon. It would be interesting to know when the results will be published.

Damian Green: New clause 15 gives rise to a deep and important debate on a clash of principles, each of which is entirely reasonable. The first is that one should not use destitution as a tool of public policy. All of us would clearly agree with that. The second is we should not have a system that will create more demand for asylum at a time when we know that the vast majority of asylum claims are not true ones. Anything increasing that demand would itself have bad effects not only in terms of the system clogging up again, but in encouraging evil people such as human traffickers to try to use the asylum system. I recognise the good intentions behind new clause 15, but it is a counsel of despair, because it says that we need to change the law in response to what is an administrative failure. That failure, as the hon. Member for Rochdale rightly pointed out, is the sheer length of time it still takes to get through the system.
In answer to one of the previous debates, the Minister said the Government are doing better than they used to do with the speed of getting applications through from beginning to end. That may be true. In the aggregate, she will know well that in certain individual cases it is definitely not so, in some cases to an horrendous extent. I suspect that we have all encountered in our constituencies people who have been waiting four, five or six years and longer and who seem to have disappeared off the radar as far as the Department is concerned.
Nevertheless, there are only two big competing moral principles. One is to say that the process will always be chaotic and that it will always take so long that people will be forced into destitution, perhaps for long periods. Destitution in this case normally means relying on the charity of good people and good institutions around the country. I am sure we have all met such people. I had a particularly eye-opening day in Leeds with some of the organisations there. I met some people who felt that they had been lost by the system and who wanted work. Some of them, who came from Somalia—this was recognised by the hon. Member for Bristol, East—said that they could not go back home. They wanted to work but were not allowed to; they could not receive benefits, so they were living off charity and doing voluntary work.
Clearly, that situation is unsatisfactory, but the solution is not to pass laws accepting it as a permanent feature. The solution is administrative, not legislative; it means getting down the amount of time involved in getting from the beginning of the process to the end, not just on average but for everyone. I accept that that is not going to happen overnight. As the situation has built up over time to be as catastrophic as it has been in recent years, it will take the current Home Office Ministers some time to make an impact, helped as they are—fortuitously—by the worldwide and particularly Europe-wide reduction in the number of potential refugees. We all know that the peak came in the early years of this century, when the Balkans were in such a terrible state. The end of that Balkans situation has had many good effects, one of which is that far fewer people are seeking asylum across borders inside western Europe.
Nevertheless, however bad the situation is now—and it is bad—I do not think that new clause 15 and the thinking that lies behind it are the solution. The solution should be administrative, not legislative. For once during our consideration of the Bill, I must part company with the hon. Member for Rochdale.

John Hemming: The hon. Member for Bristol, East said that we need to think again. She referred to evidence from Australia. We should be looking for evidence on the most effective way of handling the asylum process. If people are rejected and have been through all the appeals processes, they clearly have no right to remain in the country and should go. Is it best to say to them, “Disappear, we don’t want to see you” or to keep some track of where they are so that they can eventually be removed through an administrative process? At the moment we have a process that says, “Disappear: go and work in the twilight economy or whatever. Do what you want. We want to pretend that you don’t exist.” Then, with a bit of luck, some few years down the track, somebody from the IND might find where a person is and try to get rid of them, although they will probably just zap across to somewhere else in the country.
We need to start looking at evidence. The experience in Australia is that such an approach is not the best way of achieving the outcome that we wish to see: if somebody has no right to stay here, they are not here. From an administrative point of view, the current approach does not work. The issue raised by new clause 15 needs a little more attention than simply saying “It won’t work.”

Stewart Jackson: Like other hon. Members, I have a great deal of sympathy with the sincerity of the views articulated by the hon. Members for Rochdale and for Birmingham, Yardley. However, I think that the issue is one of principle, which is why Conservative Members cannot support the amendment.
Despite earlier comments such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere about the skills of certain asylum seekers, as I have tried to explain throughout our consideration of the Bill, the problem is simply that we do not have enough reliable data and information on which to base a decision as to whether to support such a proposal. I think that the principle is very important. In the absence of hard evidence, rather than anecdote, we cannot reward criminality, which is effectively what the new clause would do. It would reward people who may well be seriously involved in criminal activity such as drug dealing, people trafficking and so on. There has to be a finality in the system. We pride ourselves on the fact that we have a fair, transparent, robust and humane system that people are obliged to go through when they seek asylum—when they are in fear for their lives or in fear of torture.
We have all had such cases. I had a case last year, where a man who was born a Muslim and who had converted to Christianity was being returned to Pakistan. That was a heart-rending decision for many people involved. I felt desperately sorry for him. He had exhausted every avenue and, despite the comments and support of the churches in my constituency, he went back. I prayed that he was safe and able to continue in safety.
These are difficult decisions. However, by agreeing this amendment we would entrench a hard core of people who have exhausted our system at great cost to the taxpayer.

John Hemming: I have a question of principle for the hon. Gentleman. If he were shown, from the Australian experience, that such a measure would make it easier for the IND to remove people who have no right to be here, would he support new clause 15?

Stewart Jackson: The evidence given by the immigration lawyers a couple of weeks ago, during a robust exchange, was that the way to offset this problem was to deport people quickly. I am a fair person. The Government have gone in the right direction, after the calamitous situation in 2002 when we had hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers, and they have reduced that number. However, as a point of principle we cannot embed and entrench criminality.
I have no reason to dispute the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, East, although generally the Australian example is a tough one and Australia probably has the toughest immigration laws in the world. I should be interested to see the information that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned. However, at the moment I support the Government’s resistance to the amendment. There has to be finality in the system and if we do not accept and respect that, we undermine the genuine people who are fleeing from persecution, terror and threats to their life and liberty. No Committee member would want to support that.

Joan Ryan: If we agreed to new clause 15, it would replace clause 17 with a different provision. The proposed new clause seeks to end destitution for refused asylum seekers in the UK. I accept and understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Rochdale in relation to that. His proposal is supported by a range of refugee and other organisations. It would also make changes to the health care entitlements of unsuccessful asylum seekers. I shall try to deal with the two matters separately, although I acknowledge that there are strong links between them.
I understand the concerns about asylum support that gave rise to the new clause, as do other Committee members. None of us wish to see people living in destitution. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that would maintain asylum support, potentially indefinitely, for those who have made an asylum claim and had it and any appeal rejected and have chosen not to return voluntarily. In such circumstances, the harsh fact is that people who do not need our protection have chosen to be destitute. Returning home is a clear alternative for them.
Support under section 4 of the 1999 Act is available for those who are taking all reasonable steps to return home, while that return is being arranged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East asked me about the figures in relation to section 4. The last published figures show that more than 6,500 failed asylum seekers are currently getting section 4 support. That is a not insignificant number. We inform all those whose section 95 support is to be terminated of the availability of section 4 support, but they need to meet the criteria. Those who could make a voluntary return will be supported only if they are taking all reasonable steps to do so. The support is also available where there is some temporary barrier to return.
Those making a voluntary return are also eligible to receive the world-leading reintegration assistance that is provided by the International Organisation for Migration on behalf of the Home Office. Our system of asylum support is fair. It ensures that support is available to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute from the moment when they claim asylum in the UK until their claim is determined. It ensures that those who appeal against an immigration decision flowing from the refusal of their asylum claim within the clear statutory limits will continue to be supported during the course of that appeal.
The level of support provided includes adequate accommodation, where requested, and cash to meet essential living needs. It would not be right for UK taxpayers to be asked to fund on a potentially indefinite basis people who are choosing not to return to a home country that has been found to be safe for them to live in.
It might be helpful if I were to give an idea of the sorts of sums that we are talking about. The cost of supporting a single asylum seeker is approximately £106 a week—that takes account of the fact that not all of those who are destitute and seek support require our accommodation—which equates to £5,500 a year. Supporting even an extra 1,000 unsuccessful asylum seekers on that basis would cost an additional£5.5 million per annum; the cost would be an additional £55 million for every 10,000 or so people supported.
That money could be used to fund a variety of other important Government initiatives. Instead, the new clause proposes that we use that money to provide support to people who have been unsuccessful in their asylum claim and who are unwilling to make a voluntary return home. We have a long and proud tradition of granting asylum and humanitarian protection to those who are fleeing persecution and torture. Unquestionably the tradition must be maintained, but the Government believe that, in doing so, it is also our job to preserve the integrity of the asylum system. It is vital that the system does not appear to be the subject of abuse. This is not about meeting a target for the sake of it; it is about doing the right thing, which is working towards the departure from the UK of those who have no right to be here.
We are always looking to improve our processes. That includes doubling our enforcement and compliance resource and expanding our activity by 2009-10. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, we are in correspondence about measures in Australia. We are, rightly, always interested to learn about how things are managed in other countries and about the success of such measures. We are also always willing to learn from them.
Our new asylum arrangements for total case ownership will mean that one named officer will be responsible for the case from the point of claim through to the point of integration or removal. The case owner will be responsible for all aspects of the claim— asylum decision, support, appeal and removal. That does not mean that it would simply be appropriate to provide ongoing asylum support in all cases until removal is achieved. We have clear targets for the case owners dealing with asylum claims that focus on the conclusion of the case, rather than simply on making a decision or on getting a case through the appeals process. Those measures touch on the administrative measures that the hon. Member for Ashford has talked about and demonstrate why we have achieved considerable improvements in the system. Our commitment is to grant asylum to or remove 90 per cent. of new asylum seekers within six months by the end of 2011, having ramped up performance in the preceding years.
That is all part of our work to preserve the integrity of the asylum system. The new clause would certainly not help us to achieve that aim. Furthermore, it might have a damaging effect, given that it would provide a significant pull factor for asylum seekers who come from beyond the European Union and those who enter it illegally and work their way up to the northern states. If a person could make an asylum claim and be supported indefinitely on the basis that they managed to enter this country, that could have a significant impact beyond our borders. We could not contemplate supporting that.

Paul Rowen: I have been carefully following the Minister’s argument. I thank her for giving way, but cannot let her remark about indefinite support go by. We are clear that it would be support until the person was removed. In our view, the issue is about dealing with the administrative stuff as well as the other issues, not about indefinite support. That is an important principle.

Joan Ryan: I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not view the process as never ending. However, support until removal would make a significant change to asylum policy, would have a significant financial impact and would still be a significant pull factor, as point of removal is not determined. The difficulty that I have outlined certainly still applies.
We have talked about some of the solutions—the administrative solutions and the strengthening of our borders. Another key point to bear in mind is how we work in the European Union with our partners; that is also helping us to reduce the number of illegal entrants and, therefore, asylum seekers.
I do not think that it is simply a matter of there being less pressure; circumstances around the world change, but colleagues from Spain and Italy talk about the pressure and illegal immigration problems that they are experiencing on the southern maritime border. We are working with them in Frontex, the European Union border agency, to try to deal with such asylum seeking—not least because large numbers of people at sea in boats are at terrible risk, and some lose their lives. That kind of co-operation is also extremely important.
 Across the piece, we have taken clear and determined action to deal with illegal entry and the level of unfounded asylum seeker application. The hon. Member for Rochdale will know that applications are at their lowest level since the early to mid-1990s. Those measures are having an impact and are the ones that we need to pursue to continue to deal with the situation.
I turn to health care, which is an important part of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. The new clause would change the current entitlement to health care for those who have been unsuccessful in their asylum claims. As announced in our recently published enforcement strategy, we intend to shut down inappropriate access to services—those that are privileges intended for those in the UK legitimately. At its simplest, that is an issue of fairness.
 On health care, we will review the rules governing access to the national health service for foreign nationals. We will work with the NHS to ensure that the implementation of the new rules flowing from the review is accompanied by a programme of communication and good practice.

Stewart Jackson: On a very specific point, I wonder how the Minister will collect that information. On several occasions, I have tabled parliamentary question to the Department of Health and other Departments about access by foreign nationals to health services, but I have been told that that information is not collected centrally. How will the Home Office collect that information?

Joan Ryan: We will work with the NHS to ensure that the implementation of the new rules flowing from the review is accompanied by a programme of communication and good practice for those who apply the rules, including practice staff, general practitioners and trusts. Clearly, working closely with primary care and hospital trusts will be important. However, despite difficulties, it is important that we tackle that issue. 
Given the review, I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale that it would be inappropriate to make changes at the moment. The basic humanitarian needs of failed asylum seekers for health care are met already. They receive free treatment in accident and emergency departments and for many infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. For other life-threatening conditions, and in order to prevent any conditions from becoming life-threatening, they will receive appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Treatment will not be withheld or delayed. Charging issues will be sorted out subsequently, and trusts have the discretion to write off debts if it would not be reasonable or cost-effective to pursue them.
 In conclusion, although I understand the motivation behind the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, we cannot agree to the measure for supporting failed asylum seekers. It would be a dangerous measure that would drive a coach and horses through our policy and desire to deal with the issue using other means that are showing results and must be pursued. As I said, I think that we should await the outcome of the review.

Paul Rowen: I listened very carefully to the Minister and in particular to her last point about the provision of health care. Nevertheless, we believe that a clear principle is at stake here. The remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, East are pertinent to the argument. Failed asylum seekers might face a choice between homelessness and destitution, and going back home to face uncertain circumstances that might be life-threatening. In my experience, getting them to agree to go home voluntarily is difficult. I dealt with a case last year in which we persuaded someone to go back to south America—not directly, but via another country, because they were concerned about arriving at the main airport and then being arrested by the police of that country. Through support from the organisations that the Minister mentioned, we managed to get an agreement for the family to return by a circuitous route. That illustrates the point that the hon. Member for Bristol, East, made: one can enable that outcome if one gives appropriate support.
 The new clause makes it clear that we are not seeking an open-ended commitment; we want support to be provided until removal. That allows time for the administrative process to sort out the matter. At the moment, there is no incentive for the IND to sort out the process for the huge numbers that will remain in the country, even under the new policy. New proposals are needed, along the lines described by the hon. Member for Bristol, East, to provide that support. I am pleased that more people are using the process, but 5,500 or 5,600 is a small proportion of failed asylum seekers. On that note, I give notice that at the appropriate time, we will want to press an amendment regarding the new clause.

David Amess: I should advise the hon. Gentleman that if the Committee agrees that clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, I cannot allow a separate Division on proposed new clause 15, because clause 17 and proposed new clause 15 are alternatives. If one stands, the other falls; if he wishes to vote, he can vote on clause 17 stand part.

Question put,That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Support for asylum-seekers: enforcement

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in clause 18, page 10, leave out lines 2 to 5.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in clause 18, page 10, line 3, after ‘officer’, insert
‘designated under section 1 of the UK Borders Act 2007’.
No. 89, in clause 18, page 10, line 3, after ‘the’, insert ‘designated’.
No. 91, in clause 20, page 11, line 15, after ‘officer’, insert
‘designated under section 1 of the UK Borders Act 2007’.
No. 93, in clause 20, page 11, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert—
‘(f) the designated immigration officer shall deliver the seized cash to a constable within 48 hours of its seizure. The constable shall then treat this as cash seized by himself under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29),’.
No. 133, in clause 20, page 11, line 39, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to make provision about the qualification, training and complaints procedure for a designated immigration officer involved in the seizure of cash.
(2B) The regulations made under subsection (2A) shall be subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Paul Rowen: We are now moving on to enforcement procedures. The two amendments that stand in my name seek to deal with those measures, in the first case by ensuring that any officer who attempts to make an enforcement has a proper warrant. This is part of the probing process; I want to establish from the Minister the process by which the provisions will operate. Secondly, I seek to ensure that the officer is properly designated, as we discussed earlier.
The provisions are important. Exercising those powers without the benefit of a warrant would set a dangerous precedent. I want the Minister to explain the purpose of the provision, and I want to ensure that the people involved are properly designated.

Damian Green: The amendments standing in my name fall into two categories. Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 91 are all similar in intent to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale, because amendment No. 88 would require the arresting immigration officer in part 6 of the 1999 Act to be a designated officer under the terms of the Bill. Amendment No. 99 is consequential on that amendment. In relation to immigration officers being able to seize cash, amendment No. 91 would insert “designated” into part 5 of the Proceeds of CrimeAct 2002.
As we have just heard, the amendments take us back to different clauses and earlier arguments about the extension of powers to immigration officers. In particular, they refer to the adequacy of training in what we all acknowledge is a difficult job, the officers’ suitability for the job, and underlying all that, the required level of public confidence in the system. Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on whether it would be more suitable to give those enforcement powers to highly empowered designated officers.
Amendment No. 93 addresses a different problem about the cash that can be seized under the clause. The amendment says that
“the designated immigration officer shall deliver the seized cash to a constable within 48 hours of its seizure.”
It would also enable the constable to whom the cash was delivered to treat it as cash seized by him under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In practical terms, it would require an immediate handover of cash from the immigration officer to the police, and its effect would simply be to save taxpayers money.
The police must quite rightly go through tightly drawn and rigorous procedures when handling cash that they have seized during the course of their work. Given those procedures, the expertise of the police and the amount of cash that passes through their hands, few problems arise from such administration, for which we should be thankful. Amendment No. 93 would allow the police to continue the difficult and sensitive work that they do well and in which they are experienced, and the Government would not have to set up a parallel system for immigration officers.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Damian Green: As I was saying, the job of handling seized cash is done perfectly competently by the police already and amendment No. 93 seeks to prevent the necessity of setting up a parallel system for immigration officers for two reasons. First, as has been observed, any change is difficult for the Home Office. Secondly, because of the bureaucracy that is inevitably and rightly involved in such a sensitive area of operations, for which proper checks and systems are absolutely vital, it would be expensive and unnecessary to set up a parallel set of checks. I commend amendment No. 93 to the Under-Secretary, as well as the previous amendments about using only designated immigration officers to exercise the new powers.

Joan Ryan: Clause 18 will amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to give an
“immigration officer the power to arrest without warrant a person whom”
he or she
“reasonably suspects has committed an offence undersection 105 or 106”,
which are about seeking to obtain asylum support by making false or dishonest representations. The clause will also ensure that the same powers that allow an immigration officer to enter premises to arrest or search and seize relevant evidence will apply to that type of offence. Giving immigration officers a power of arrest for those offences will enable them to pursue independent operations against asylum support fraud, which is as the Government intend. The measure is an essential part of the immigration and nationality directorate’s deterrence policy against what are, as everyone will agree, serious offences, which can involve a significant amount of money. Immigration officers have held powers of arrest, entry, search and seizure for a number of criminal offences since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The powers came into effect on 14 February 2000 so, rather than giving new powers, the clause applies existing powers to offences under sections 105 and 106 of the 1999 Act.
I would like, however, to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the exercise of this power. As I said, it is comparable to existing powers of arrest that are exercised without warrant. For example, officers have the power to arrest for fraud under section 14 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It is right that an officer can arrest without warrant, because that is a serious offence and in certain circumstances officers need to be able to act quickly.
Only immigration officers who have the appropriate training will be able to exercise the power of arrest. That is a point of concern to Opposition Members, and I wish to reassure them about the level of training that officers receive. It is provided by Centrex, a non-departmental government body that works with the police. That training is therefore undertaken on the advice of the police and with their involvement. I am satisfied that it is appropriate. It consists of a three-week arrest course and equips an officer to search premises and persons and arrest individuals in accordance with the Police and Criminal EvidenceAct 1984. It covers a conflict resolution model and safety training, which must be refreshed annually.
The training presents greater difficulties than hon. Members are perhaps aware of when they suggest that immigration officers are not able to act independently. They are given appropriate powers, training and oversight. Some of the issues that we are discussing are not operational priorities for the police, and the Association of Chief Police Officers is not concerned about the powers being given to immigration officers because there is appropriate training and oversight. It is not as straightforward as it might sound to effect an arrest, seize evidence in order to effect a prosecution and ensure that that evidence is handed over rather than retained by finding the appropriate constable. It might sound straightforward but it can in fact be problematic.
If immigration officers have the appropriate training and the police think the powers being given to them are appropriate—they are not new powers; they are just being applied to the offence in question and the seizure of evidence related to it—we should agree to the clause and ensure that our immigration officers can work effectively against relevant fraud.
As I have said, immigration officers already have fairly extensive powers of arrest for fraud, illegal employer activity, illegal working, facilitation, failure to report, deception, illegal entry and other offences. That is just a sample. About 40 per cent. of enforcement officers are now arrest trained, and a much smaller percentage of immigration officers at the borders have such training. By 2008, we expect all officers to be arrest trained. If not everybody in a team is arrest trained, there must be police support in the team. If all its members have received arrest training, it can operate independently of the police.

Damian Green: This is a fascinating practical point. As the Under-Secretary said, there are currently two tiers: those who are arrest trained and those who are not. How much extra training will the arrest trained immigration officers need to become designated immigration officers?

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman refers to designated immigration officers. That might be where there is a problem in the drafting of his amendment. I am not clear whether it is unintended or not. It says
“‘designated under section 1 of the UK Borders Act 2007.’”
If his amendments applied, the only immigration officers who could have these powers would be those who are designated to detain at port. Whereas the immigration officers that we are talking about, and the powers we wish them to be able to use in relation to asylum support fraud, are not necessarily at port at all. According to the Government, the designation is that they will be designated as arrest trained.
Those exercising the power of seizing evidence would also undergo training with the Assets Recovery Agency. We need to be cautious about not confusing the use of the term “designation.” Those officers will be arrest trained in the manner that I have just explained as they are to exercise exactly these powers in relation to the other offences that I outlined. However, according to these amendments, and as we have discussed previously, only those officers
“‘designated under section 1 of the UK Borders Act 2007’”
could carry out this power of arrest, which are those designated to detain at port. That would not make sense.

Damian Green: We could argue that point. However, is the Under-Secretary saying, in response to my original intervention, that the designated officers can just be designated and that if they are already arrest trained, they do need any extra training to become designated officers at port?

Joan Ryan: No, I am not referring to designated officers at port with the ability to detain. The provision refers to teams of immigration officers who carry out enforcement activities, not necessarily at a port at all and who are able to arrest in relation to an immigration offence.
In terms of officers designated at port, the purpose of that designation—as I understand it—is that they can detain individuals for up to three hours who are not necessarily being detained in relation to an immigration offence and who may be a British citizen. That is somewhat different. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the training for officers at ports who are exercising the powers that he refers to under clauses 1 to 4, I would have to undertake to write to him. That is not the same as the powers being discussed in this clause nor would these immigration officers receive the same training.

John Hemming: It shows an element of confusion in the drafting of the Bill that a person needs to be designated for the purpose of clause 2, but not for the purpose of arresting. There is no statutory distinction. Each of those are functions for which one is trained. One presumes that one is a superset of the other; that designation is a superset of arrest. However, one would expect some clarity from the Government on that.

Joan Ryan: I do not think that there is any confusion in the drafting of the Bill. It is meant to be read clause by clause and section by section, and if that is done, it is not in the least confusing.
Designation at port relates to the power of an immigration officer to detain an individual at port—not necessarily in relation to an immigration offence and not necessarily a foreign national. That is the significant difference between the powers of immigration officers and the powers of the police in relation to the issue that we are discussing. The offences relate to immigration matters, not to anything else. The only situation in which the powers might be applicable to a British citizen is when somebody somehow facilitates fraud relating to asylum seeker support. There is a significant difference in the powers and they do not overlap in the way that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about.
Limiting cash seizure powers to officers designated under regulations would restrict the application and use of the powers. In particular, amendment No. 91 would limit the exercise of the power to designated immigration officers at ports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In effect, unless someone was at a port, the amendment would make it impossible to seize the evidence relating to the offence.

Damian Green: The Under-Secretary has either just confused me or illuminated an extraordinary point about the first part of the Bill. I assume that once someone has been designated an immigration officer at a port, they do not stop being designated just because they are not working at a port. Presumably, it is not true to say that a designated officer will never be away from the port when they could still possibly be making arrests and seizures of cash.

Joan Ryan: The officers to whom I am referring are not designated officers at port; they are immigration officers who have been specially trained in arrest procedures. That is not necessarily the same as being a designated officer at port. A designated officer at port may well have had arrest training, but an arrest trained immigration officer operating outside the port is not necessarily a designated officer at port. Designation as a term does not apply outside the port, as outlined by clauses 1 to 4, which the Committee discussed earlier.

John Hemming: The question being asked is why we have a statutory designation for someone who is trained for one function and not for someone who is trained for another function with which I argue that there is substantial overlap.

Joan Ryan: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are significantly increasing enforcement activity and that is why, across the board, we want all our enforcement officers to be arrest trained so that that they can undertake specified activities and the required level of enforcement.
There are a number of safeguards in relation to the powers that will give some reassurance to the hon. Members. For example, subject to regulation made under section 4 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, the powers will be subject to regulation and scrutiny by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is a strength. The Immigration (PACE Codes of Practice) Direction 2000 will also apply to the use of the powers. A strong safeguard and scrutiny process is therefore in place. As I said, only officers who have had the appropriate training will be able to exercise the powers, and safeguards will be employed to ensure that they are used correctly. The powers will enable us to continue to ramp up our enforcement activity, ensure that it is effective and meet our commitment to deal with fraud of this kind. That probably covers all the points that I wish to make.
As I said, it is important to bear in mind that we are not giving new powers to immigration officers, but simply applying them to a different set of offences. The powers have operated well and without problems since 2000, which means that we should be confident to move forward and allow immigration officers to use the same powers in relation to this offence.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the operation of the clause. Our initial concern was whether it enhances the powers of immigration officers without ensuring that the relevant training and support is in place, and I am pleased that she has reassured us that the training already takes place. We are merely seeking to extend the use of trained officers in this area.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford that there is a little confusion about designation. I understand the point about clauses 1 to 4, but what safeguards are there to ensure that any immigration officer involved in a seizure, arrest or search has gone through the required training? I thought that the point of the term “designated” in clauses 1 to 4 was to ensure that those safeguards were in place, and I think a similar provision would have been pertinent in this clause, albeit for a different reason. However, I am happy to accept the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Points-based applications: no new evidence on appeal

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in clause 19, page 10, leave out from line 23 to line 11 on page 11 and insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament regulations setting out exceptions that may be considered on appeal.
(6) Regulations shall only be laid under subsection (5) after full consultation with all interested bodies.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 132, in clause 19, page 10, line 38, at end insert—
‘(d) there is clear evidence that the applicant was unclear about the conditions required; and
(e) a failure to consider new evidence would be in clear breach of natural justice.’.

Paul Rowen: We now move to the points-based application, a different aspect of the immigration process and a relatively new section of immigration law that is not yet fully operational. I understand the reasons for having a points-based application, which will clarify matters for people who submit an application to come to this country. They will know from the operation of the points system whether their application will be successful.
However, I am concerned that because the proposal is so new it virtually excludes any exceptions, except in one very narrow sense. As members of the Committee are aware, however tightly something is set up in law something or someone will always find a way around it. Rather than the proposals setting out that there will be no new appeals and a very narrow basis on which an exception might be allowed, in tabling amendment No. 136, I am seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State reflects on how the clause might operate, and then, having consulted and discussed it with relevant bodies, comes forward with what the allowable exceptions might be.
When dealing with a new system that is not yet in operation, it is good practice before shutting the door to consider what sort of exceptions might be allowable. If we do not do so, the end result may be that new case law drives a coach and horses through what the Government intend. In that case, we might need another immigration Bill because of not dealing properly with earlier measures. A later clause on the sale of assets comes readily to mind; in previous immigration legislation, the Government allowed themselves the power to seize assets but not to dispose of them. That is being dealt with in the Bill, but there could nevertheless be exceptions.
Amendment No. 132 is slightly different. In my experience of dealing with applications to enter the country it can happen, for genuine reasons, that the applicant is unclear about the operation of the system and does not provide the necessary evidence in a form that allows the officer to make a decision. I readily admit that even though a case may have been formally determined, once one asks an officer to reconsider it, especially if it is at a port, he will do so if one can demonstrate that the applicant has not presented all the required information. The problem is sometimes that the many people who make money offering advice about completing the forms are the least able to advise properly; they take lots of money from people and then give them poor advice.
Amendment No. 132 would allow natural justice to apply if there was evidence that what was needed had not been explained properly or not fully made clear. Another example comes to mind. The Department for Education and Skills keeps a list of what might be deemed allowable UK courses for those coming into the country to study who have qualifications from their own country. I have come across cases in which the course for which the applicant is qualified is not on the Department’s list, but once one engages in conversation with the Department, it concedes and accepts that the course is allowable.
I accept that that may well come under the narrow point about exceptions in clause 19, but amendment No. 132 would allow a little leeway so that people can demonstrate in a positive way that they meet the criteria. I do not want them to be admitted if they do not meet the criteria. I merely want to ensure that when people submit applications, they are given every opportunity to put forward their best case. Otherwise, as usually happens, they will be forced to make another application, and if the increases in costs go through it will be a considerable burden to those seeking to come here to study.
I hope that the Minister will take the amendments in the spirit in which they were intended. I seek to ensure that the new system is allowed to operate properly before being overtaken by events.

Joan Ryan: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is intended to make much clearer the points-based system by which people can apply for extended leave to remain or the right to come here to work or study. I understand his points about clarity, but perhaps I can offer him some reassurance.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would extend the circumstances under which a tribunal would be prohibited from considering new evidence, although that might simply be a problem with the wording—I accept that it is a probing amendment. I think that his intention was to allow the tribunal to consider evidence that was not submitted with the original application if the applicant was
“unclear about the conditions required”
and if the
“failure to consider new evidence would be in clear breach of natural justice.”
Why is that problematic? Because it would make the evidential rules in points-based system cases very vague. The key consideration would be what the applicant knew, so different rules of evidence would apply to different applicants. That approach could be seen to reward applicants who could show that they did not know what the rules required, while penalising those who took care when making their applications. Any applicant who did not supply evidence on time could claim that he was unclear about the requirements. That would present a difficulty with the whole aim of the system. People could take a chance on the judge believing them and letting them submit further evidence with their appeals. We are trying to ensure that appeals are not simply an extension of the application process, but the intention behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment means that late evidence could still be submitted at appeal.
Under the system, the majority of people will apply online. We will stipulate what evidence is required so that it is clear and there can be no misunderstanding as to what is needed. If an applicant is unable to provide a piece of evidence, in exceptional circumstances, we will give advice as to what evidence can be submitted instead. That should not present a problem with late evidence. With online applications, there will be tick boxes and if applicants cannot tick them to say that they can submit what they need to, they will be told that there is a problem and that they need to submit a certain document. If they are unable to do that, they will be told to take different steps or to make contact. It will be clear what evidence is required, what replacement evidence can be provided when the necessary evidence cannot be produced and what to do if there is still a problem.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but given what we learned in the papers last week about the operation of a similar system for medical graduates, I am not sure that this system will take account of all the circumstances. I return to the example that I gave about qualifications. When the relevant box is ticked, the system does not necessarily accept the stated qualification. What route would an applicant then take to prove that that qualification was acceptable? If the computer is not satisfied with the application, it will reject it.

Joan Ryan: As I have said, it will be clear exactly what is required for each tier. If an applicant still has difficulties it will be possible, ultimately, to make contact, but we want a clearer, more streamlined system. We want to stop the situation in which the appeals process is simply an extension of the application process.
If it is very clear what evidence should be submitted with an application, I do not think that there can be a reason that is acceptable at appeal for an individual to appear suddenly with the evidence that they were asked to submit at application. Of course, that will not stop people having the ability to reapply, as long as they are in time to do so. If they submit an application but do not provide the evidence that is requested and have their application refused, if they are in time they can submit a further application and that application will not be prejudiced by the outcome of the previous application. That is the appropriate measure, as long as it is absolutely clear to the applicant what is being asked of them.
Of course, we want to ensure that there are a number of safeguards and clause 19 already contains a number of safeguards that will ensure that we do not cause an injustice, which covers the hon. Gentleman’s other point.
Where IND case workers believe that a document is not genuine or valid, the applicant will be able to submit evidence to try to rebut that allegation and thus clear their name. In those circumstances, for example, it is possible to submit further evidence. However, where an applicant is trying to demonstrate that they meet the clearly stated requirements, it is not appropriate that further evidence should be given at appeal. Application is about deciding, on the evidence that the applicant has submitted, whether a decision can be made. Appeal is about deciding, on the basis of the evidence that the applicant has submitted, whether an unfair or wrong decision has been made. At the moment, appeal is often used simply to submit evidence that should have been submitted with the initial application and we want to move away from that situation. In order to do so without creating injustice, we want to make it absolutely clear to applicants exactly what evidence they need to submit.
Regarding the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about difficulties with different qualifications, he will be aware that in tier 1, for instance, which is for highly skilled migrants, the only measure is the qualification at degree level. So, it is absolutely clear; if you are a highly skilled migrant, the qualification is a degree, and what is the level of the degree? In tier 4, for students, qualifications are assessed by colleges themselves, not by the IND.
The hon. Gentleman asked about people who apply to study at colleges that are not on an approved DFES register, but which are added to the list after an application is made. That question seems to be connected with applications for entry clearance. If an applicant was using the pre-checking online system prior to making an application, it would be clear to them that their application would be refused. In that situation, the applicant would be clear that they should not be applying until the college is added to the register. That is the way that the system should work. So the pre-application online system will assist individuals in not submitting an application that will be refused, by making it absolutely clear whether or not they meet the criteria.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s explanation, which is important to the operation of the system, because hon. Members need to understand how it will operate. If I may, I shall give her two other examples of cases that I have dealt with in which the current system allowed the appeal and therefore allowed migrant workers to come into the country. In one case, which I dealt with last year, a number of stonemasons were allowed into the country to carry out some work. They were allowed in because they were to be working on a local mosque and we were able to show that although a British stonemason might have the qualifications to be a stonemason, they would not be able to carve the Arabic words that were wanted on the front of the mosque. That to me was an example of a case in which the qualification is there and is equivalent to a qualification that exists in this country, but someone could say that extra evidence has to be shown, which is the ability to do that—

David Amess: Order. Interventions should be brief. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will reply now.

Joan Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Amess. It is not the intention of the points-based system that where there are skills gaps and specialist skills are needed, we are unable to avail ourselves of those specialist skills. Of course that will be possible through the points-based system and we would want to ensure that that was the case. There are situations in which individual skills are required and we need to be able to and will take account of those.
Amendment No. 136 would mean that instead of being laid down in primary legislation, the circumstances in which new evidence would be excluded in an appeal would be contained in regulations. Parliament could not amend such regulations, so there would be a significant reduction in parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed changes to the appeals process. Also according to the amendment, we would have a statutory obligation to consult stakeholders before regulations could be laid.
Secondary legislation would make the appeals system more complicated; our long-term goal is to simplify legislation. Parliamentary procedures, as we have seen during proceedings on this Bill, give interested parties plenty of opportunities to make their views known throughout the legislative process. The involvement of stakeholders is possible at a number of points in the process. For instance, Ministers met representatives of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association before the Bill was introduced, and ILPA, along with other interested organisations, gave evidence at the recent public evidence session at which the hon. Member for Rochdale was present. Such groups can also lobby MPs, expressing their views on proposals in a Bill and offering amendments.
We have shown in the course of proceedings on this Bill just how much involvement stakeholders can have, so I see no additional benefit from the latter aspect of amendment No. 136. Overall, the amendment would reduce parliamentary scrutiny of the changes to the asylum and immigration tribunal’s jurisdiction, without improving the opportunities that stakeholders have to contribute to the law-making process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has had sufficient reassurance that he feels able to withdraw amendment No. 136 and not to press amendment No. 132.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s response. However, our debate has demonstrated that we have not had sufficient chance to discuss how some of the measures will apply. Clearly, many more issues will arise when the Bill is put into operation. By tabling the amendments, I sought to give the Government a little longer to consider some of the issues. I am happy to withdraw them, because I think that case law will instead be made through the AIT. The Government might think that they have produced a cast-iron case that does not allow any exceptions, but I suspect that the reality will prove to be otherwise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
 Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes pastSeven o’clock till Thursday 15 March at Nine o’clock.